[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Cisco uRPF failures

Subject: Cisco uRPF failures
From: nicotine at warningg.com (Brandon Ewing)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 13:26:18 -0500
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <00c401c9072b$f46a38c0$dd3eaa40$@com> <[email protected]> <007401c90e25$6eaf2280$4c0d6780$@com> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 08:11:28PM +0300, Saku Ytti wrote:
> 
> Sound like these shops are using 3550 as router, which is common for
> smaller shops, especially in EU. And indeed, 3550 would not do uRPF. 
> (3560E does).
> 

Are you sure?  According to the IOS guide for 3560E/3750E, "ip verify" is
still an unsupported interface command.  I don't have a 3560E handy to test
on, but I know that a non-E 3560 refuses it with a notice regarding how
verification is not supported by hardware.

http://tinyurl.com/5qbqzb

-- 
Brandon

Follow-Ups:
- Cisco uRPF failures
  - From: saku+nanog at ytti.fi (Saku Ytti)
- Cisco uRPF failures
  - From: tomz at cisco.com (Tom Zingale (tomz))

References:
- Force10 Gear - Opinions
  - From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
- Force10 Gear - Opinions
  - From: james at towardex.com (James Jun)
- Force10 Gear - Opinions
  - From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
- Force10 Gear - Opinions
  - From: rubensk at gmail.com (Rubens Kuhl Jr.)
- Cisco uRPF failures
  - From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
- Cisco uRPF failures
  - From: saku+nanog at ytti.fi (Saku Ytti)
- Cisco uRPF failures
  - From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
- Cisco uRPF failures
  - From: saku+nanog at ytti.fi (Saku Ytti)

Prev by Date: ingress SMTP
Next by Date: Identifying when netblocks have been assigned
Previous by thread: Cisco uRPF failures
Next by thread: Cisco uRPF failures
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread